Jerome Vitenberg: France Aims to Destroy African Militias

victims of Boko Haram2By Ryan Mauro:

Jerome Vitenberg is an analyst of international politics and taught International Relations and Political Science for the London School of Economics through the University of London’s International Programsat DEI College Greece.

In a column last month, Vitenberg wrote that France’s involvement in the war-torn Central African Republic is part of a strategy to assemble a bloc of liberal democracies in Africa. He explains that France wants to create what he himself has termed the “Doula-Djibouti Corridor” across Africa, although France has never used this term.

CAR’s population is 80% Christian, but an Islamist campaign of violence is causing mayhem and the deaths of over 1,000 civilians and displacement of over 500,000 people. Unfortunately, some Christians have responded with their own militias that have engaged in retaliatory violence.

The following is Vitenberg’s interview with Ryan Mauro, Clarion Project National Security Analyst:

You should read the entire interview at but I want to focus on this part because it speaks to the most often asked question I see: Why do government officials tolerate and appease Islamists even when they are fully aware of their agenda?

Clarion: What is the official stance of France and other European countries towards the Muslim Brotherhood and, specifically, its role in Egypt?

Vitenberg: The French and other European intelligence agencies are fully informed about the jihadist goals and malicious strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated organizations.

On the other hand, the political echelons have shown a policy of appeasement towards those organizations within their countries. Each European country has a different theoretical understanding and practical methodology towards its dealings with Muslim organizations, especially the Muslim Brotherhood.

These differences result from how the various states relate to minority groups, the relationship with the minorities’ representative groups and, more generally, the concept of the relationship between the state and the individual.

There is a blatant contrast between the well-known intolerance of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology towards non-Muslim states and societies and the laissez-faire policy of the European governments towards the Brotherhood. There are several hypotheses about the political elites in Europe.

In some cases, the political echelons are naïve and believe in appeasement of jihadist organizations. Their normative and idealist approach prevents them from listening to their security and intelligence agencies.

CJR: See The Cognitive Dissonance of the Progressive World View on Islam

Political elites may be victims of political blackmail that leads to a quiet understanding with the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in their countries. The understanding is that the European government lets the Islamists operate and the Islamists will keep quiet and not cause too much trouble.

The political elites may also be bribed, possibly via financial donations (e.g. from Qatar) for specific national projects or due to corruption with funding deposited into secret bank accounts.

CJR: See John Guandolo: The Muslim Brotherhood in America – We are at war and we are losing, specificallyPart III – The settlement process

There might be more explanations, but I believe that stupidity, fear and greed summarize why politicians are letting the Brotherhood manipulate individuals and families as a first step and societies and governments later.

CJR: see Western Arrogance and Decline  by Bruce Thornton at Front Page

The Islamization of France in 2013

Marseille-450x270by Soeren Kern:

“Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?” — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman, Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

The Muslim population of France reached an estimated 6.5 million in 2013. Although France is prohibited by law from collecting official statistics about the race or religion of its citizens, this estimate is based on the average of several recent studies that attempt to calculate the number of people in France whose origins are from Muslim majority countries.

This estimate would imply that the Muslim population of France is now approximately 10% of the country’s total population of around 66 million. In real terms, France has the largest Muslim population in the European Union.

Not surprisingly, Islam and the question of Muslim immigration were an ever-present topic in newspaper headlines during 2013. In practical terms, the debate over Islam in France centered mainly on questions about French identity, secularism and security-related issues.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the main stories about the rise of Islam in France during 2013:

On January 1, 2013, Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that a total of 1,193 cars and trucks were torched across France on New Year’s Eve. He also said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

Valls broke with recent tradition by publicly announcing the number of car burnings because “the French people should know the truth.” His predecessor, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, decided in 2010 to stop making public the number of car burnings because doing so had the effect of encouraging competition between rival gangs of Muslim youths, determined to see which of them could cause the most destruction.

Car burnings are increasingly commonplace in all French cities and are often attributed to shiftless young Muslims who reside in suburban slums known as banlieues. French authorities are especially eager to avoid a repetition of the riots in 2005, when the deaths of two Muslim teenagers in the banlieue of Clichy-sous-Bois near Paris sparked weeks of looting and car-burning, and led to the imposition of a state of emergency.

Meanwhile, jihadists in France and elsewhere debated how to respond to a comic book biography of the Prophet Mohammed published on January 2 by the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo.

According to the inestimable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which translated the Arabic twitter posts of several jihadists, the suggestions included: “killing France’s ambassadors, just as the ‘manly’ Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi; carrying out operations similar to 9/11, London’s July 7, 2005 bombings, and Madrid’s March 11, 2004 bombings, because only attacks of this kind would deter and defeat the ‘crusaders'; carrying out assassinations; conducting suicide bombings outside the French Information Ministry building; and holding demonstrations outside French embassies, especially in Egypt, because it has [allegedly] been proven that the Egyptian public can sway the entire Arab public.”

It was also suggested that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) kill the hostages it is holding, and that anyone who can kill a French national do so without hesitation.

The Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo were destroyed in an arson attack in November 2011 after the magazine featured a cartoon of Mohammed on its cover. The attack marked a serious escalation of a long-running Islamic war on free speech and expression in Europe.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Five Signs of Hope (Maybe) for Europe

Prince-Charlesby :

Every now and then readers of this site, while thanking me for my coverage of the Islamization of Europe, have kindly asked if it’s possible for me to provide an occasional break from the endlessly depressing accounts of jihad and appeasement and dhimmitude and, quite simply, report on some good news for a change.

Point taken. Here, in recognition of the hopeful message of Christmas and the New Year’s promise, is a year-end dose of tidings of – well, not great joy, but at least possible positive turnarounds on various fronts.

1. BRITAIN: Walking back a dhimmi policy

The Marks and Spencer story. This one went through the whole cycle (from proud corporate declaration of spineless dhimmitude to meek apology therefor) with incredible – and gratifying – rapidity.

Just a couple of days before Christmas, a customer of the posh London retailer told the Telegraph that a Muslim clerk had refused, albeit politely, to ring up her bottle of champagne because the item offended the clerk’s religious convictions. Confronted with this story, a spokesperson for M&S affirmed that, indeed, out of respect for Islam, the store had a policy of allowing Muslim workers to refuse to serve customers purchasing (for example) alcohol and pork, and to pass these haram customers on to other, less discriminating employees.

Result: a huge public outcry, including a Facebook page promoting an M&S boycott. Within hours, M&S was not only apologizing for its wrongheaded policy but (amusingly) insisting that, in fact, it had no such policy at all, and that in the champagne incident the store’s actual policy had not been properly followed.

2. FRANCE: Walking back a dhimmi report

Here’s another example of outraged reactions to dhimmitude having a real effect. Earlier this month, Le Figaro revealed the contents of a new report – commissioned by France’s socialist prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault – which recommended a veritable blizzard of revolutionary acts by the government, from renaming streets and squares after immigrants to prohibiting the mention of transgressors’ ethnicity in the news media. Among much else, school curricula would be dramatically transformed to make them radically multicultural. Accepting the report on November 13, Ayrault promised that the recommendations would be acted upon tout de suite.

Then the protests started pouring in. “It will no longer be up to immigrants to adopt French culture,” charged Jean-Francois Cope, head of the opposition UMP party, “but up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others.” Geoffrey Didier, also of UMP, called the report “a crime against republican assimilation and another step in the communitarian strategy of the Socialist Party.” And National Front leader Marine Le Pen denounced it as “a “declaration of war on the French who are calling for an end to the policy of mass immigration and the reaffirmation of our republican laws and values.” The nationwide outrage led one commentator to describe Ayrault as having “shot himself in the foot.” Confronted with the reaction, Ayrault did a snappy about-face, saying meekly: “Just because I get a report doesn’t mean it’s government policy.”

3. BRITAIN: A Prince who May or May Not Be Snapping out of It

Over the years, Prince Charles’s gushing praise of Islam, his enthusiastic participation in Islamic ceremonies, and his occasional references to his own purportedly serious study of the religion have fed speculation that he was either a secret Muslim or was well on his way to becoming one. (A 1997 article in the Middle East Quarterly, entitled “Prince Charles of Arabia,” carefully sifted through the evidence for this proposition.) As recently as 2010, Charles gave a speech extolling Islamic “spiritual principles” as environment-friendly.

How surprising it was, then, to hear the Prince of Wales saying in a speech earlier this month that “we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately attacked by fundamentalist Islamist militants.” Underscoring that he had been trying for twenty years “to build bridges between Islam and  Christianity,” he lamented that “we have now reached a crisis where the bridges are rapidly being deliberately destroyed by those with a vested interest in doing so, and this is achieved through intimidation, false accusation and organised persecution, including to Christian communities in the Middle East at the present time.” Refreshingly, he made no apparent attempt to draw a false moral equivalency, to put the crisis down to the usual “interreligious tensions”: no, Charles actually said that Muslims were persecuting Christians, and condemned it outright.

This doesn’t mean he’s now a hero of the counterjihad resistance, but it’s something.

Read more at Front Page

France: Muslim Woman Sues Over Burqa Ban

by Soeren Kern:

The law [banning the veil] also liberates women because the wearing of veils “is totally incompatible with the very idea of equality,” according to Annie Sugier, head of the International League for Women’s Rights.

“[H]er aim is not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.” — Part of Court’s summary of the case.

The court has deemed the case to so important that it has taken the unusual step of referring it to the Grand Chamber, the Court’s highest chamber.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has opened a landmark hearing to consider the legality of France’s ban on wearing Islamic veils in public spaces.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR enforces the European Convention on Human Rights and its jurisdiction is compulsory and binding for all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

The court’s ruling—expected to be issued sometime during the middle of 2014—will determine the fate of the debate over so-called burqa bans (herehereherehere and here) that have been raging across Europe for many years.

This is the first time the supra-national ECHR has agreed to consider the legality of the face-covering niqab or the body-covering burqa in public spaces in a European country.

 

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The ECHR is considering the legality of France’s restrictions on wearing the Islamic veil in public. (Image source: CherryX/WikiMedia Commons)

The court has deemed the case so important that it has taken the unusual step of referring it to the Grand Chamber, the court’s highest chamber that handles the most significant and leading-edge questions affecting the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court began hearing the case—which is being brought by a 23-year-old French Muslim woman identified only by her initials S.A.S.—on November 27.

According to a summary of the case published by the court, S.A.S. sued the French State on April 11, 2011, when legislation banning people from covering their faces in public places came into force. The document states:

“In the applicant’s submission, she is a devout Muslim and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions. As she has explained, the burqa is a full-body covering including a mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The applicant also emphasizes that neither her husband nor any other member of her family puts pressure on her to dress in this manner. She adds that she wears the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically. She is thus content not to wear the niqab in certain circumstances but wishes to be able to wear it when she chooses to do so. Lastly, her aim is not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.”

S.A.S. argued that the French law violates six articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. These are: Article 3 (no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion); Article 10 (freedom of expression); Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association); and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

France’s “burqa ban” entered into force on April 11, 2011. The law—which prohibits the wearing of Islamic body-covering burqas and face-covering niqabs in all public spaces in France—was enacted amid rising frustration that the country’s estimated 6.5 million Muslims are not integrating into French society.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

Burqas and Niqabs: Both an Embarrassment and a Security Risk

2jpgBy Paul Wilkinson:

It is perfectly understandable if women choose not to wear Western-style tight or revealing clothing, preferring instead to dress modestly for personal, cultural and/or religious reasons. However burqas and niqabs overstep this mark and go way beyond ‘modesty’.

Burqas cover the entire body making it difficult to decipher even the body shape of what is underneath. They can have a mesh over the eyes, and gloves may be worn so no flesh is visible.

The niqab is a face veil that covers most of the face, apart from the eyes. However even the Qur’an does not command women to cover their face.

There are Quranic verses regarding female attire and the importance of dressing modestly, such as verses 24:31 and 33:59: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.”

There is no compelling religious reason why women should keep their faces covered, which instead highlights Islamic cultural issues regarding oppression and whether women are being forced into wearing them. Even if burqas/niqabs are worn through free choice they are still degrading, incompatible with Western society, a symbol of ‘Islamisation’ and indeed an embarrassment to humanity itself.

Painful viewing but ‘highly educated’ Muslimas describe their ‘entitlement’ in this Channel 4 debate at the hardline East London mosque. It must be noted that at least two of the veiled guests are believed to be Islamists (I guess many in the audience as well!) and this was not conveyed to the unsuspecting viewer.

Channel 4 ‘Debating the Niqab’ at the East London Mosque.

Channel 4 ‘Debating the Niqab’ at the East London Mosque.

How Do Non-Muslims View Niqabs & Burqas?

The majority of people find the sight of a woman in a niqab or burqa, which resembles a ‘mobile tent’, both morally offensive and divisive.In September a ComRes poll for Channel 4 News“revealed that 55% of Brits surveyed want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places similar to the laws in France, ‘because full face veils made them feel uneasy and unsure how to relate to the wearer.’” Eighty percent of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, while 58% want to see all head coverings abolished in these institutions … 75% of Brits said they were ‘unsure how to relate’ to women wearing the full face veil and niqab – which leaves just the eyes visible. People also admitted to feeling ‘uneasy’, ‘nervous’ and ‘threatened’ by the full face veil.”

So despite clear opposition to this clothing there has been and still are ample opportunities for public debate on this issue, but dhimmi slaves like David Cameron (who stayed with a Muslim family for two days in 2007 and subsequently thinks he is an Islamic expert), and Nick Clegg have both declared, without consultation with the public, that banning burqas is off-limits and would be an ‘un-British’ thing to do!

Cameron and Clegg say women should not be forced to wear burqas or niqabs and ‘ideally’ they should not be worn in hospitals or schools, but when exactly did women wearing a ‘black bin bag’ or a balaclava suddenly become ‘British’? It is pure cowardice because they don’t want to upset the PC brigade; Muslims may become violent and these politicians could lose the Muslim vote.

Read more at Cherson nd Molschky

 

Islam: Silencing Its Critics with Violence

Under-Sharia-those-who-insult-Muhammad-or-300x225By Rachel Molschky:

Few dare to criticize the “religion of peace” for fear of a violent retaliation. Ironic? Not really, considering the fact that violence pervades the very essence of this “peaceful” religion. Case in point, the recent case in France of Abdelhakim Dekhar, who stands accused of four recent attacks, one being a shooting at a Paris newspaper office where he shot an assistant photographer. As usual, the mainstream media ignores the Muslim name and suggests the motive is “hazy.” However, Dekhar had written a letter complaining of “media manipulation,” that “evil” capitalism, and was angry about Syria among other things. These are all typical Muslim grievances.

The Islamic response to criticism is death. When there is no self-defense, and armed with no logical explanation in order to combat the critics, the only way out is violence. That’s why whenever there are “peaceful” protests, the placards Muslims proudly hold high call for our beheadings. If you’ve never witnessed this firsthand, there are countless photos to prove it. Men, women and children all parade around with signs calling for our savage murders. Why? Because we dared to criticize.

619545-childsign-225x300Yet criticism brings about change, which is how we progress as a society. Sometimes we progress a little too far and make excessive changes, but certainly some reform is a good thing. For example, some critics of Judaism will say that the punishment of stoning exists in the Torah. Gary T. Panell of Bible Christian discusses capital punishment in the Bible and offers his interpretation regarding the use of rocks to administer it: “As harsh as it may seem, using stones to kill someone, there was a practical side to it. Wherever you were, there would always be plenty of rocks.”

Guess there are a lot of rocks in the Muslim world.

No matter how you want to interpret those verses, the fact remains, Jews no longer “stone” people, which makes such criticism positively senseless. Furthermore, different denominations of the religion have come about as civilization has progressed, and people disagree over the meaning of this or that as well as the application of it in our lives today.

The same is true of Christianity. Martin Luther brought about the Protestant Reformation, and even the Catholic Church itself has made tremendous changes throughout the years and is not the same as it once was. There will always be critics of those changes. Sometimes the modifications may be a step in the wrong direction, but overall the Judaism and Christianity of today cannot be compared to the barbaric stonings and beheadings which not only exist in Islam today but are an intrinsic part of it.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Obama’s Soft Stance on Iran Might Force Israel to Strike

The French-Israeli-Saudi Front Against Iran?

Picture-5-388x350By :

Israel and Saudi Arabia are proving the old adage correct that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  The Iranian regime is their common enemy. Israel sees a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat. Sunni Saudi Arabia worries that Shiite Iran with nuclear arms will be emboldened to threaten other Sunni Gulf governments and ultimately try to force its will on Saudi Arabia itself.

Thus, the Jewish state of Israel and the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia, certainly not friends in normal times, find themselves planning to join forces if necessary to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear arms finish line. According to a November 17, 2013 article in the British newspaper Sunday Times, Saudi Arabia has agreed to “give the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran.” The Saudis are also reported to be willing to assist the Israelis by making drones, rescue helicopters, and tanker planes available for the Israelis’ use.

“Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” an unnamed diplomatic source told the Sunday Times.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have good reason not to trust the United States to negotiate an acceptable deal that would dismantle Iran’s nuclear uranium enrichment and plutonium facilities in a fully verifiable manner. They have been pushed aside as the Obama administration plunges forward to reach an accommodation with Iran. Rather than take seriously the concerns of the countries in the region who would be most directly affected by a rash settlement on terms favorable to Iran, President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry are wearing blinders. They downplay how close Iran is to achieving its long-held ambition of becoming a nuclear-armed power and the danger that a bad deal will only serve to give Iran diplomatic cover while it moves ahead.

Israeli intelligence has concluded that the Obama Administration’s previous interim offer to Iran would only set back the Iranian nuclear program about 24 days. What was Secretary of State John Kerry’s response when he was asked about this assessment during his briefing of senators last week, as he tried to dissuade them from passing legislation to impose more sanctions on Iran? Kerry repeatedly told senators, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) remarked to reporters after the meeting, to “disbelieve everything that the Israelis had just told [us].” A Senate aide familiar with the meeting was quoted by BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray that “every time anybody would say anything about ‘what would the Israelis say,’ they’d get cut off and Kerry would say, ‘You have to ignore what they’re telling you, stop listening to the Israelis on this.’”

Read more at Front Page

 

On This Day In 732, Charles the Hammer Stopped Islam’s Advance on the West

Charles-Martel-the-Hammer-of-GaulBy Citizen Warrior:

Islam conquered most of the Middle East and North Africa and then came across the Straights of Gibraltar and conquered Spain, subjugating the people under Islamic rule, giving the European (mostly Christian and Jewish) people the choice of conversion to Islam or perpetual underling status burdened with a tax on non-Muslims (vital funds Muslims used to finance further conquests).

Islamic armies moved north into what is now France (known as Gaul at the time). That was the high-water mark of Islam’s first major invasion of Europe, because it was there they were stopped.

After several large battles, the Islamic hordes were defeated by an army led by Charles Martel, who came to be known as Charles the Hammer. The final and decisive battle occurred on October 11th, 732, one hundred years after the death of Mohammad.

Europe is being invaded again by Islamic hordes. This time they are being welcomed in by people ignorant of history and ignorant of Islamic doctrine.

People who are committed to Islam’s political goal of world domination have been swarming into Europe by the millions, gaining more and more political clout and winning more and more battles as Europeans concedetheir freedoms, their land, and their money to this aggressive and relentless ideology.

But they will be stopped. Europeans are not spineless people. Not even all of Europe’s politicians are spineless. Islam was stopped before — despitethe fact that many European kings had made deals and allied themselves with the Muslims to gain a temporary political advantage. It was happening then. It is happening now.

But Europe is waking up and so is America, Australia, and India. The more people know about basic Islamic doctrine, the more immune they become to the political manipulations of orthodox Muslims. Concessions made will be revoked. The West will rise again and stop Islam for the third time.

To fortify our commitment to our future victory, today we honor the fighting spirit of Charles the Hammer.

 

In case you haven’t seen it, this video by Bill Warner is an excellent survey of the history of Islamic jihad:

France Fights Public School Islamism

Sharia4FranceBurqasBy :

Secular France wants nothing to do with religion.  Yet, it has been forced to grapple with its increasing Islamization that appears to be spinning out of control.  The French Education Minister has a new plan to push back:  a secularism charter in every public school.  However, France’s misguided efforts are unlikely to solve the problem.

France is officially a secular country with separation of church and state.  There is no state religion and everyone is free to believe or not believe as they wish.  The expression of religious faith is permitted within the boundaries of public order.  All creeds are respected and treated equally under the law.  But, unlike America which has true religious freedom and allows religion in the public square so long as one religion is not favored over another, the principles underlying France’s 1905 Laïcité laws call for the cleansing of religion from State functions and institutions.  Therefore, despite the fact that France’s  Constitution claims otherwise, secularism reigns supreme over faith.

In recent years, France’s secular underpinnings have been challenged.  Largely due to faulty immigration policies, France is quickly becoming the most Islamized country in Europe.  Approximately 200,000 people immigrate legally into France every year, and another 200,000 people immigrate illegally.  Currently, approximately 10 percent of France’s population is Muslim (an estimated 4.7 – 10 million people) and the numbers are rising.

Muslim immigrants pose a severe threat to French secularism and therefore to the nation’s identity.  Many Muslim immigrants show little interest in assimilating, learning French, or integrating into mainstream society.

Increasingly, Islamic institutions and practices are replacing French secular traditions.  Muslim University students are demanding separation of the sexes, excused absences for religious reasons, and pressuring universities to alter their curriculums.

In some areas, there are Muslim enclaves governed by Sharia law.  In these “no-go zones” government officials have de facto relinquished control.  Police, firemen, and even ambulances refrain from entry.  At last count, France had 751 “Sensitive Urban Zones”, as these areas are euphemistically called.

The French are loosing control in other regions of the country as well to groups of Muslims who regularly violate State laws.  For example, in some locales Muslims block traffic and fill the streets for Jummah prayers on Fridays, in violation of French law.  Yet, the police stand idly by.  There are numerous other examples along the same lines.

Read more at Front Page

The Armenian Genocide Denied by Turkey – Full Movie

A still frame from the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, which portrayed eye witnessed events from the Armenian Genocide, including crucified Christian girls.

A still frame from the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, which portrayed eye witnessed events from the Armenian Genocide, including crucified Christian girls.

Documentation about the Armenian genocide in 1915 which Turkey denies down to the present day.

The documentation is based on reports of, amongst others, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, the American National Archives, the Library of Congress and archives in France, Denmark, Sweden, Armenia, Russia and Turkey.

These documents, hidden for a long time in order not to harm Turkey, leave absolutely no room for doubt about the reality of the Armenian genocide.

Also see: THE FORGOTTEN GENOCIDE — AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY

The False Religious Argument Over the Burqa

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
August 6, 2013

France is Losing Hearts and Minds of Native-Born Muslims

Police vehicle in France. Photo: Wiki Commons

Police vehicle in France. Photo: Wiki Commons

By Richard Landes:

Granted that it’s Ramadan, which skews the sample, but every day, certainly every week now, it seems, there’s a new indication that France is losing its battle for the hearts and minds of its native-born Muslims.

This week, for example, a convert to Islam attacked a police officer who stopped his niqab-clad wife. Some reports stated that his aggressive disrespect justified the husband’s anger and fueled outrage in the Muslim community. That evening after the fast, several hundred of his “brothers” rioted for hours outside the police station where he was detained, injuring six. The police, worried that too strong a reaction might lead to a reprise of the rioting of Ramadan 2005, only reluctantly intervened. The next night, after the fast, the violence began again and spread to nearby neighborhoods. For the moment, public calm reigns during the daytime fast, but the battle has already been won: police will not willingly fine women veiling their faces. And now (and for the foreseeable future),every Ramadan night will be a tense one all over Europe.

Last week, a train derailed in Bretigny, killing ten and injuring hundreds. Some “youth” (the French media’s euphemism for Muslim gangs), responded first,despoiling the corpses. When the ambulances arrived, the predators stoned the rescue workers, forcing them to wait until the police arrived. This gruesome scene illustrates the deeply disturbing and aggressive contempt for French civic norms among many Muslim “youth” in France today. The shocking story rapidly spread, only to be literally “recalled” by a collective decision of the political classes and mainstream media, including the police who experienced the stoning,who dismissed the reports as rumor. Only reluctantly did the issue return to public discussion.

Such a decision to erase from public discussion the behavior of an aggressive“tribalism,” within the Muslim community, and the ability to implement this erasure across the mainstream news media, represents a pattern of (ultimately self-destructive) behavior whose roots go back over a decade. It started in earnest with the inverse pattern: namely the mainstream media published material that provoked a kind of tribal vengeance in their immigrant communities and then covered up the ensuing violence.

At the beginning of the Oslo Intifada in September 2000, the French media (and most Western news outlets) fell prey to and broadcast what has now been revealed (even the Israelis have weighed in officially now) as a cheap hoax: a Palestinian cameraman’s claim that he filmed Israeli troops targeting and killing a young Palestinian boy, Muhammad al Durah, who “died in the arms of his father.”

It is difficult to exaggerate the eagerness with which the French seized upon this malicious and invented lethal narrative and gave it mythical import. “This death [sic] erases, replaces the picture of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto,” intoned one news anchor, referring to the symbol the deliberate extermination of a million Jewish children by the Nazis. Apparently, Europeans thought that the Holocaust Inversion theology involved – Israelis are the new Nazis, the Palestinians the new Jews – liberated them from Holocaust guilt, and they showed the image repeatedly in their news broadcasts of the Intifada, themselves laden with further lethal narratives credulously recycled “as news.”

Read more at Algemeiner

This young French housewife, “La Blonde” is speaking out:

Muslims are Not a Minority

muslimsparisBy Daniel Greenfield:

The most persistent myth of the Western Dhimmi narrative is that Muslims are a minority and must receive special protection and accommodation. But Muslims are not a minority. There are 1.5 billion Sunni Muslims worldwide, outweighing Catholics as the next largest religious faction at 1.1 billion and Hindus at 1 billion. They are still a minority of the overall population in Western countries, but a demographically trending majority.

In the UK more people attend mosques than the Church of England, that makes Muslims the largest functioning religious group there. Mohammed was the most popular baby name last year, ahead of Jack and Harry. In France, in this generation, more mosques have been built than Catholic churches and in southern France there are already more mosques than churches. Mohammed-Amine is the most popular double name, ahead of Jean-Baptiste, Pierre-Louis, Leo-Paul and Mohammed-Ali.

In Belgium, 50 percent of newborns are Muslim and empty Belgian churches are being turned into mosques. The most popular baby name is Mohammed and of the top 7 baby names, 6 were Muslim. A quarter of Amsterdam, Marseilles and Rotterdam and a fifth of Stockholm is already Muslim. The most popular baby name in Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and The Hague is… Mohammed.

Europe’s Muslim population doubled in the last generation, and is set to double again. By 2025, (a decade and a half away), a third of all births in the EU will be Muslim. The demographic writing is already on the wall. A third of Muslims in France and Germany are teenagers or younger, as compared to a fifth of the native population. A third of Muslims in the UK and Belgium are under 15 versus a fifth of the native population. Counting all age groups, they’re a minority. But in generational demographics, Muslims are swiftly becoming a majority.

Looking at these numbers it is hard to argue that Muslims are a minority. They are not a majority at the moment, but majorities are not just a statistical snapshot, but a cultural and demographic trend. Countries are not defined by the past, or even by the present, but by the future. By the direction in which they are headed. And Europe’s future is a Muslim majority. Most European governments have accepted that and are acting on it. There may currently be more warm European bodies than Muslim ones, but the culture is being steered by the assumption of an Islamic future.

America is not nearly as vulnerable to the Muslim demographic bomb, because it is less socialist and more multicultural. It also has no former Muslim colonies, like England or France. Or at least it didn’t have any before. But the liberation of Iraq has touched off a swarm of ‘refugees’ moving to the United States. While some of them are Christian, the majority are Muslim. By law we are obligated to accept 5,000 a year. The 2008 target for Iraqi immigration was 12,000, far more than most of the former Soviet Union combined. Not significant numbers alone, but they are part of a bigger picture.

In 2005, almost 100,000 Muslims became legal residents of the US. In 2009, it was 115,000. And the numbers continue to rise each year. That means that already they make up around 10 percent of immigrants to the US. The number of Egyptian and Syrian immigrants has more than doubled since 9/11. The number of Turkish immigrants has more than tripled. The number of Afghanis has tripled. Somalis have gone up from nearly 3,000 to nearly 14,000 a year. Pakistan hit a high of 21,000 in 2009 and Saudis are up by 50 percent.

Not nation shattering numbers in and of themselves, but let’s look at them in relation to birth rates.

The United States birth rate was 13.5. Pakistan’s birth rate is 24.1. Egypt’s birth rate is 24.6. The Saudi birth rate is 19.3. The Afghani birth rate is 37.3. The Somali birth rate is 42.7. What this means is that we are importing Muslim immigrants with a birth rate that twice or even three times higher than our own.

Read more at Sultan Knish

Geert Wilders warning to America:

 

  • BNI has assembled a collection of videos to illustrate what is going on in Belgium, France, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Spain.
  • And check out Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheets. You will be shocked.

France: Muslims Attack Police for Enforcing Burqa Ban

250 Muslims rioted and set fires after the police fined a woman for violating the country's ban on full-face veils.

250 Muslims rioted and set fires after the police fined a woman for violating the country’s ban on full-face veils.

by Soeren Kern:

Muslims say they are upset over police who are enforcing the secular laws of France.

Police in the suburbs of Paris are working to restore order after hundreds of Muslims went on a rioting spree to protest the simple identity check of a Muslim woman who was wearing a full-face Islamic veil.

It is against the law to wear the face-covering niqab or the body-covering burqa in public spaces in France; violators are subject to fines of up to €150 ($200).

The latest round of violence erupted the evening of July 19 in Trappes, a gritty suburb situated 30 kilometers (20 miles) southwest of Paris. Trappes has 30,000 inhabitants, many of whom are Muslim immigrants.

Police say a crowd of possibly 400 Muslims gathered outside the Trappes police station in response to the arrest on July 18 of a man who had assaulted a police officer during an identity check on his wife, who was entirely veiled.

The niqab-wearing woman in question is 20-years-old; her 21-year-old husband, a convert to Islam, reportedly objected to the policeman interrogating his wife, and allegedly tried to strangle him, an act that lead to his arrest. Muslims insist the man was provoked.

After police in Trappes rejected Muslim demands to release the husband, the mob went on a rampage, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at police, pelting police with firecrackers from rooftops, burning cars and trucks and destroying public property, including several bus stops, before being repelled by riot police.

nine-minute video on YouTube shows police helicopters buzzing overhead amid burning cars and trash bins, as well as a building that was torched. Photos of the unrest can be viewed here and here.

Although no one died in the disturbances, five people were injured, including four police officers and a 14-year-old boy, who lost his eyesight from a projectile.

Despite a heavily reinforced police presence, on July 20, approximately 50 people were involved in fresh clashes with riot police. Around 20 cars were torched and four people arrested. A seven-minute video of the violence can be viewed here.

The violence also spread to the surrounding towns of Elancourt and Guyancourt.

Read more at Gatestone Institute